Looking for something? Start here.
Custom Search

 



 

 

« The Birth Blogosphere's Agent Provoca(tu)teur | More Than Just Rude Behavior: The Rest of Catherine Skol's Allegations »
Wednesday
Dec242008

Spinning It for the Doctors: Headline States Real Number of Unnecessary C-Sections May Be 4%

The real headline should be:  Study Shows Georgia Hospitals Systematic Reporting of Risk Factors for Cesarean Deliveries Flawed

 

 

This article appeared on USNews.com today.

More than 70,000 of these women ended up having a Caesarean delivery, and almost 41,000 were listed on the birth certificate as having no risk factors. Yet, in the hospital discharge data, nearly 90 percent of these women had a risk factor listed.

Overall, 58.3 percent of birth certificates suggested no risk factors. But when the researchers pooled the data and combined both birth certificate data and hospital discharge data, they found the rate of Caesareans with no reported risk factors at just 3.9 percent.

 

The real story is that there is a discrepancy of more than 50% in how risk factors are reported in Georgia hospitals on birth certificates and discharge forms. 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

Well isn't that just interesting. I'm sure if we did a state-by-state comparison we'd find similar "discrepancies" across the board.

December 27, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterlabortrials

The reality is that families risk a 30+% chance of being sliced and diced just by seeking hospital maternity care. Risk factors in themselves do not automatically equal a necessary cesarean.

Some of the nastiest reasons to perform birth interventions are for factors relating to clinical knowledge, or, you and baby have now become human test subject for students, residents, and for inclusion in research trials.

This is also be known as For-Unlawful-Carnal-Knowledge if your family wasn't fully informed of the risks and benefits of each procedure respectively, or refused the intervention. This type of behavior is criminal, and should incur jail time for any professional who participates in, or fails to report such incidences.

When government research panels green light mother-baby experimentation in which consent is not sought because it might skew the results (or you would refuse to participate), this can also fall under the same acronym, yet carries a different meaning, Fornication-Under-Consent-of the King. No democratic government body has ethical justification or power to approve such practices.

I remember reading a post discussing birth intervention with vaginal contact/penetration, and how it could not possibly be rape even when the provider is being expressly told they do not have consent or permission, because they weren't fu%&ing these women. Ahem, yes they were, in capital letters.

January 24, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterAnon
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.